XPost: alt.terrorism.world-trade-center, soc.culture.usa, alt.activism   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq   
   From: pinkfloppybitsdatstank@hotmail.com   
      
   .impervious wrote:   
   > In news:jfRXb.14555$5W3.10216@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,   
   > CH attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:   
   >   
   >> .impervious wrote:   
   >>> In news:VqPXb.25277$1S1.12777@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,   
   >>> CH attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> No you cannot argue the facts. The fact is that Bush did nothing   
   >>>>> when he came into office. Except re-empower the terrorists.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If Bush had 8 years like Clintoon did, we would not be here today,   
   >>>> 9-11 would not have happened.   
   >>>   
   >>> here is where your logic is flawed - Clinton *didn't* have 8 years   
   >>> to stop the attack that happened on his watch...  he had   
   >>> thirty-eight days. Bush had nine months.   
   >>   
   >> Clinton had 8 years minus 38 days to ensure that the perpetrators of   
   >> the first WTC attack were stopped from ever attacking America again.   
   >> He did nothing except prosecute the underlings, he let the major   
   >> players go. They attacked two embassies killing US citizens and   
   >> foreigners, he let them go, he did nothing. They attacked an American   
   >> warship, killed 17 American servicemen, he again did nothing.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Yeah - it's lost me on how negotiating with the bad guys is a good   
   >>>>> thing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I know it is lost on you, but then again that is not surprising.   
   >>>   
   >>> the reason it's lost on most liberals is because we remember what   
   >>> negotiating with the bad guys does...   
   >>   
   >> Oh.............. do you mean like North Korea?   
   >> And the "Agreed Framework"?   
   >> I sure hope you learned your lesson on that one..............another   
   >> Clintoon blunder.........   
   >>   
   >>> like putting weapons in the   
   >>> hands of Iraq and Iran, helping to form the Taliban, and installing   
   >>> countless brutal dictators in countries where we didn't like the   
   >>> democratically elected leaders.   
   >>   
   >> Where we didn't like the "democratically elected leaders"? Can you   
   >> cite?   
   >>   
   >>>>> He commissioned Hart-Rudman. That panel specifically predicted the   
   >>>>> 9/11 attacks.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Bullshit....... more lies. He did nothing but paper over the   
   >>>> problem leaving it for the next administration. Nobody needed a   
   >>>> report to see what Clintoon should have seen way before 9-11. He   
   >>>> was President you know......he was in charge....or he was supposed   
   >>>> to be........   
   >>>   
   >>> here's where your logic fails again...  if you feel it's okay to say   
   >>> what Clinton "should have seen," presumably because it's so   
   >>> glaringly obvious, then why don't you hold Bush to the same   
   >>> standard?   
   >>   
   >> Because Bush didn't have 8 years minus 38 days like Clintoon did.   
   >>   
   >>>  i mean,   
   >>> if no report was needed to see that 9/11 was going to happen, why   
   >>> wasn't the guy who was in charge AT THE TIME keeping an eye out?   
   >>   
   >> After only nine months in office, barely. After a transition to   
   >> office that was delayed by holding up his transition office funds for   
   >> three months by the liberal legal machine it is no wonder. Is GWB   
   >> culpable in 9-11? Certainly, he was in charge of the ship at that   
   >> time so just by inference he can be made to appear culpable. Should   
   >> he have seen it coming? Certainly, he was in charge of strategically   
   >> protecting our country. Could he have predicted it? No, certainly   
   >> not. The difference is that Clintoon did have time to do something   
   >> about it, he just chose not to. He thought it was best to handle it   
   >> as a legal matter, a criminal matter not as an attack against our   
   >> country and the act of war that it was. For that poor decision the   
   >> WTC was reduced to rubble....................   
   >>   
   >>> there is just no way you retards can pin this on Clinton, the way   
   >>> you try to pin everything on him.   
   >>   
   >> There isn't? The truth is kinda hard to avoid.......   
   >>   
   >>> i swear...  you people call us the "blame-America-first" crowd...   
   >>> but while we blame terrorists, you blame Clinton (an American).   
   >>> sheesh.   
   >>   
   >> After knowing for 8 years minus 38 days what would you think? Asleep   
   >> at the wheel? Inept? Stupid? I mean come on, you justify his   
   >> inactions if you wish to defend him. That is what you are trying to   
   >> do right?   
   >   
   > all of your rambling is pointless.  it's easy to bang blame wherever   
   > you like, but the fact is, Bush has followed the course that Clinton   
   > laid out just before he left office.   
      
   No shit sherlock, now you are getting the point.............   
      
   > you do nothing but prove your hypocrisy, when you try to blame Clinton   
   > for everything that happened before and after his presidency.   
      
   I am not trying to blame him for everything, just the things he is culpable   
   for.   
      
   >  why   
   > wasn't it GHWB's fault that WTC '93 occurred?   
      
   Of course not.   
      
   > because it was the   
   > *terrorists* fault, stupid.   
      
   It was our fault because we did not do anything about it.   
      
   >  nobody can do anything other than   
   > speculate about anything that hasn't happened, or isn't a part of   
   > history.   
      
   And that is why I said history speaks for itself.   
      
   > history records that Clinton tripled the antiterrorism   
   > budget for the FBI, and doubled it overall...  that he fought tooth   
   > and nail with the republican congress for MORE counterterror funding   
   > and lost...  that he commissioned reports on the status of the   
   > world's terrorists and actively pursued them.  the civilian in charge   
   > of Iraq right now, Paul Bremer, called Clinton "obsessed" with   
   > terrorism.  if you choose to ignore the fact that Clinton did more to   
   > prevent terrorism than any president before or after him, you're as   
   > big a moron as you keep coming across as.   
      
   Clinton talked a good talk that was all. He studied and he fretted and   
   worried, but in the final tally he accomplished very little. GWB has done   
   more in the little time he has been in office that Clintoon ever considered   
   doing. Bush is a man of action, Clintoon is a man of words. You cannot use   
   only words to fight terrorists that attack you on your own soil, you have to   
   have strong words and actions to counter the threat.   
      
   > why is it that republicans   
   > refuse to give ANY democrat ANY credit for ANYthing they ever do?   
      
   Because democrats have accomplished very little in this respect. Don't   
   listen to their words, judge them by their actions.   
      
   > fucking hypocrites.   
      
   Nice words..............   
      
   --   
   Cliff   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)